My Lindsay Ellingson post garnered some attention from The Other McCain: "Topless Supermodel Lindsay Ellingson Really Wants You to Hit My Tip Jar."
Also, Bob Belvedere linked: "Rule 5 News: 23 September 2011 A.D."
And don't miss Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Priscilla Monroe." And Theo's "Red Friday Totties ..."
BONUS: At Astute Bloggers, "GUARANTEED NOT HALAL: Mallika Sherawat."
EXTRA: From BCF, "Michael Coren Gets Beat Up By a Girl."
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, returned to the United Nations’ General Assembly Friday with all the confidence of a former ambassador, who has frequently used the assembly podium as a pulpit.Also at Legal Insurrection, "Netanyahu at the U.N. – Theater of the Absurd."
With a familiarity that almost bordered on contempt, Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s ambassador to the UN in 1984-88, upbraided the General Assembly for even entertaining a Palestinian request for statehood.
“The truth is that Israel wants peace; the truth is that I want peace,” he said, adding, “We cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions.”
Mr. Netanyahu criticized the UN, calling it a “theatre of the absurd.” He noted the Security Council is now headed by Lebanon, whose government is controlled by Hezbollah, an internationally recognized terrorist group.
“It was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland was branded shamefully as racism,” he said.
“And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, wasn’t praised, it was denounced. And it is here, year after year, that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation … more often than all the other nations of the world combined.”
The Israeli leader’s message was as simple as it was blunt: “The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state.”
If that were to happen, “Israel will not be the last state to welcome a Palestinian state into the United Nations,” he said. “We will be the first.”
Her barely audible delivery and long pauses appeared to make Gates and other dignitaries on stage uncomfortable.
In a tweet Thursday night from the auditorium, Inquirer Staff writer Tom Infield reported that Delaney "seemed high or ill, or something. She stumbled in speaking. Had to be led to seat."
No word yet from Delaney's representatives what might have caused her behavior.
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates' opinions on don't ask don't tell. There was audible booing after his question...however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.So, not only was it just "one or two people," their boos were immediately repudiated by those sitting nearby.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here's my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc.
The shocking silence on the stage - the fact that no one challenged this outrage - also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. When it came to it, even Santorum couldn't sanction firing all those servicemembers who are now proudly out. But that's because he was forced to focus not on his own Thomist abstractions, but on an actual person. Throughout Republican debates, gays are discussed as if we are never in the audience, never actually part of the society, never fully part of families, never worthy of even a scintilla of respect. When you boo a servicemember solely because he's gay, you are saying he is beneath contempt, that nothing he does or has done can counterweigh the vileness of his sexual orientation.This is completely decontextualized and patently absurd. Not only do we have Sarah Rumpf's first hand report of the audience reaction to the (one or two) boos, but it turns out that Rick Santorum didn't even hear them. He's interviewed by Megyn Kelly at the clip. She correctly observes that there were just a couple of people who booed, and Santorum responds that he didn't hear booing, and "when you're in that kind of environment, you're sort of focusing on the question and formulating your answer..." And Santorum repeatedly notes that "this man is serving our country" and he thanks him for his service.So, contrary to Andrew Sullivan, it's simply not true that Republicans deem gay soldiers "never worthy of even a scintilla of respect." If Santorum is to be faulted, it's simply that he didn't acknowledge the soldier for his service. But that's a question of Santorum's personal decorum, and upon reflection, he clearly regrets how he came off and has corrected the record in his interview with Megyn Kelly. But what's key is the progressive left's willfully false attacks on Republicans. David Nir does the same thing at Daily Kos, "In face of boos for gay soldier, Republicans stay silent." And Greg Sargent attacks Republicans along these lines while fully cognizant that the outrage is bogus:
It would obviously be unfair to use this episode to tar all Republicans. Some, to their credit, have already registered their dismay about what happened. Even audience members reacted badly and told the hecklers to shut up. But it’s perfectly fair to see it as representative of the caliber of the candidates that stood on the stage last night.No, it would not be fair, for the reasons that Rick Santorum indicates. The debate environment is basically a high stakes performance. The boos might not have registered with the candidates. And they likely were trying to anticipate the line of questioning and the direction of the debate rather than the appropriate salute to a soldier who submitted a question via YouTube. That's not fair, perhaps, but it's a long way from indicating that the Republican Party is filled with hordes of anti-gay bigots whose "posturing military patriotism has its limits." The truth is, as I've pointed out many times, the gay progressive left is a hate-cult powered by intolerance of difference. What bigotry we learned out this episode came from those on the radical left. And the outrage is especially rich in Andrew Sullivan's case, considering he's probably the last person who should be lecturing others on "gay sexual misconduct."
Palin, who is flanked by her own film crew and the paparazzi, is clearly playing up the confrontation for the cameras, barely holding back a smile as she engages in an argument that can only go ugly places. That said, besides the relatively polite homophobia, her defense is spirited and her opponent can barely put together a sentence. It almost looks staged as Bristol taunts the guy until he screams, "Fuck you, you fucking bitch!" There couldn't be more perfect fuel for the Palin family fire.Again, nothing homophobic about asking that. And note this from a decent fellow in the comments at Towleroad:
Sorry, folks, but that guy was way out of line. From what I saw in this video, he was the one behaving poorly, while Ms. Palin was just defending herself and her mother. I'm not fan of Sarah Palin, but that doesn't mean it is ok to heckle and harrass her daughter, and it certainly wasn't ok to heckle her about her relationship with Levi. That guy set gay rights back a few steps with his bitter, hysterical behavior.
More at ABC News, "Bristol Palin Gets in Verbal Brawl at Bull Riding Bar."
Wonder if the McPhail family will seek death penalty for US leaders who killed thousands of US soldiers and countless innocent Iraqis.And Michelle notes the McPhail tweets are accessible again on Twitter.
Global investors dumped everything from stocks to corporate bonds to foreign currencies and fled to the relative safety of U.S. Treasurys on fears of another recession and a Greek debt default.RTWT.
Markets, already reeling from economic weakness around the globe, have been further destabilized by a growing sense that governments and central banks are unable to get growth back on track. Stocks began tumbling Wednesday after the Federal Reserve unveiled a new round of economic stimulus, and they kept falling Thursday.
With his now-familiar mix of bombast, politics and theater, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday denounced the United States and its European allies as colonialist "slave masters" intent on wrecking the world economy, prompting dozens of Western diplomats to walk out.
As in previous years, Ahmadinejad used his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the United States and its allies, accusing them of causing centuries of misery. He charged that they were responsible for the suffering caused by slavery, world wars, nuclear attacks and the current global economic turmoil.
As before, his presence also sparked protests outside the U.N. But this time around, his influence seems to be ebbing in Tehran, and his speech was overshadowed by the week's dominant topic, the Palestinian Authority's bid for U.N. recognition.
Ahmadinejad had no comment on the Palestinian issue, keeping instead to his usual themes and invective. He accused Israel of causing "60 years of war," and railed that European nations used the Holocaust "as the excuse to pay ransom or fines to Zionists."
ORLANDO, Fla. — Republican presidential front-runners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, taking up where they left off in their last on-stage meeting, attacked each other over Social Security and health care in a televised debate Thursday, with the Texas governor on defense for much of the contest.More at the link.
The third Republican presidential debate in as many weeks showed the same dynamics as the prior two, with many of the candidates jabbing away at the Texan. In one exchange on immigration, Mr. Romney said he couldn't understand why Mr. Perry signed a Texas law giving in-state university tuition to illegal immigrants, something he said amounted to as much as a $100,000 subsidy for each.
"Nobody on this stage…has spent more time on border security than I have," Mr. Perry responded, charging that his rivals don't "have a heart."
He also said, "I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks," a week after saying the previous debate left him feeling like a piñata.
Each time Mr. Perry tried to go on offense against Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor brushed him off, twice with a dismissive "nice try."
It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.Continue.
That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.
After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.
Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week -- barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis' room and board for the past two decades.
(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn't have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)
It has been claimed -- in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example -- that there was no "physical evidence" connecting Davis to the crimes that night.
Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What "physical evidence" were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?
I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait -- they did. That's "physical evidence."
It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.
Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally.
The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following...
The U.S. has blocked ceasefire efforts at the time of Israeli attacks. In fact, Obama himself—you can take a look at his—I don’t know if he still has it, but in his website prior to the election, there was a section on the Middle East. And it’s worth looking at. It gives you an indication of what’s been happening since. It’s full of, you know, adoration of Israel. You expect that. Practically not a word about the Palestinians, a few phrases saying maybe they should have some rights. But that was right in the middle of the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, a brutal, murderous invasion, without any credible pretext — you can go into that—actually, the fifth such invasion. And Obama took pride, in his webpage, in having co-sponsored a Senate resolution, right in the middle of the invasion, insisting that nothing be done to impede Israel’s attack in Lebanon and that the U.S. should censure and maybe sanction anyone who tried to interfere with it—Iran and Syria.That's just one long astonishing stream of lies. It's not just this part about Israel's alleged "brutal, murderous invasion" of Lebanon in 2006, but notice how Chomsky piles on 4 more lies, with this part about "the fifth such invasion" by Israel, etc. So, counting back, we have Gaza in 2009, Lebanon in 2006, Lebanon in 1982, Yom Kippur in 1973, and the Six Day War of 1967. There are a few other conflicts, but these are probably the ones Chomsky's referencing. And in each case, Israel acted in self-defense, or as preemption in the case of 1967. That is, the "credible pretext" has been either border incursions into Israel, rocket attacks, terrorism against Israel civilians, or full-scale massed army warfare waged by "murderous" Arab regimes against the Jewish state. Here's Wikipedia, for example, on the origins of the 2006 Lebanon war:
The conflict began when militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon. Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport ,[35] an air and naval blockade, and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions....What's interesting about the Wikipedia entry is not only how devastating it is to Noam Chomsky's argument, but also that Wikipedia's widely perceived as hopelessly left-wing on top of that. See, "How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 1."
At around 9 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it[60] as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi and other villages. Five civilians were injured. Six Israeli military positions were fired on, and the surveillance cameras knocked out. At the same time, a Hezbollah ground contingent infiltrated the border into Israel through a "dead zone" in the border fence, hiding in an overgrown wadi. They attacked a patrol of two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling the border near Zar'it, using pre-positioned explosives and anti-tank missiles, killing three soldiers, injuring two, and capturing two soldiers (Master Sergeant Ehud Goldwasser and First Sergeant Eldad Regev). In response to the Hezbollah feint attacks, the IDF conducted a routine check of its positions and patrols, and found that contact with two jeeps was lost. A rescue force was immediately dispatched to the area, and confirmed that two soldiers were missing after 20 minutes. A Merkava Mk III tank, an Armored personnel carrier, and a helicopter were immediately dispatched into Lebanon. The tank hit a large land mine, killing its crew of four. Another soldier was killed and two lightly injured by mortar fire as they attempted to recover the bodies.
Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for four Lebanese held by Israel...
PHOTOS: The scene at Newport Lido Theatre, "The Undefeated" screening, Wednesday, September 7, 2011.
... we were struck by the force of Obama’s description of the U.S.’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel. Rarely has a speaker at the UN rostrum spoken so clearly and obviously sympathetically on how Israeli and Jewish history shapes that nation’s security concerns. That point might seem self-evident, but it was a pointed and welcome rebuke to Holocaust deniers or minimizers in the Middle East and elsewhere.Actually, I think New York's special election last week, and the role of Ed Koch, sent a huge message to the White House. The president's U.N. speech was just one of the first instances of Jewish outreach we'll be seeing a lot of over the next year.
Odder still was his silence on U.S. opposition to establishing a Palestinian state in the current UN session. Obama offered only a tepid endorsement of Palestinian aspirations to independence. Obama might feel that he made his stand against the Palestinian strategy clear by stating that negotiations and compromise offer the only path to Israeli- Palestinian peace and that “there are no shortcuts.” But we believe that most in the audience expected an explicit explanation of U.S. policy and its plan to veto a resolution of recognition in the Security Council.
With world leaders in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Republican presidential hopefuls seized the opportunity Tuesday to blame President Obama for the most contentious issues looming over the gathering, saying he had emboldened the Palestinians to push for statehood and endangered Israel by kowtowing to Iran, Muslim militants, and, in the words of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, "the orchestrators of terrorism."More at the link.
Perry, speaking at a Manhattan hotel, made a pitch to Jewish voters by calling for Jerusalem — including East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians envision as the capital of their future state — to be the undisputed territory of Israel.
Honestly, this is hard to watch --- and I mean Tucker Carlson debasing himself. When he pleads that he's got a wife and three daughters, that's it:
And see William Jacobson, "Can the Daily Caller survive?"What is now happening in Europe isn't so much a crisis as it is an exposure: a Madoff-type event rather than a Lehman one. The shock is that it's a shock. Greece was never going to be bailed out and will, sooner or later, default. The banks holding Greek debt will, sooner or later, be recapitalized. The recapitalization will be borne by German taxpayers, and it will bring them—sooner rather than later—to the outer limit of their forbearance. The Chinese will not ride to the rescue: They know not to throw good money after bad ....Man, that's harsh.
What comes next is the explosion of the European project. Given what European leaders have made of that project over the past 30-odd years, it's not an altogether bad thing. But it will come at a massive cost. The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Parties of the fringe will gain greater sway. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued. Countries will choose decay over reform. It's a long, likely parade of horribles.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a way of containing the destructive force of sex on a combat capability called “unit cohesion.” To create the perfect killing machine, the military works hard to drain recruits of their individuality and their self-interested desires in order to make them think like cogs, well, in a machine. An essential part of the military mind is that the members of a fighting unit don’t think for themselves, but do as they are told. They work as a unit in which each performs an appointed task. The mission objective – not personal consideration – guides their actions. Suppose a commander were faced with the choice of risking his unit or risking the life of his own son, for example. Suppose the life of his son were threatened, but to save him would risk the military objective his superiors had set. Suppose he let the human override the imperatives of the machine. He would be doing what was natural, but the military objective he sacrificed might cost the lives of hundreds or thousands.Also, Mackubin Thomas Owens, "The Case Against Gays in the Military":
To avoid such breaches of military discipline, military policy does not allow family members to fight in the same unit. The same principle underlies its policy towards gays. Sacrifice of unit cohesion and military order is the threat that sex between soldiers poses for any combat force. The open inclusion of gays in the military is regarded by military men who oppose it a threat to effectiveness of the military as a fighting force.
Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.We'll of course see how these arguments play out in real life.
Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.
From January 2009 through 2010, Obama advanced the liberal dream with a passion not seen since the New Deal days of Franklin Roosevelt. He bulldozed all opposition and rammed through most of what he wanted with the help of a Democratic Congress: Obamacare, record borrowing, record spending, and hundreds of hard-left presidential appointees and judges.
Far from being namby-pamby, Obama has gone after opponents like no president since Richard Nixon. He urged Hispanics to “punish our enemies.” He called his political opponents “hostage takers.” The affluent were lumped together with the super-rich and derided as “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate-jet owners,” and “fat cat” bankers. His supporters in unions and the Congressional Black Caucus freely blasted the Tea Party with slurs — with the unspoken assurance that the president’s constant calls for civility certainly did not apply to them.
Critics may lampoon Obama’s use of a teleprompter, but he still uses it to good effect in his near-daily speeches. Obama is a far better megaphone for left-wing policies than was the lackluster Jimmy Carter, the pompous Al Gore, or the condescending John Kerry. He easily outshines the wooden Harry Reid and the polarizing Nancy Pelosi. Compared with Obama and his smoothness, an often gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden can seem a liability. Obama is as charismatic as “I feel your pain” Bill Clinton — as we saw in 2008, when Obama destroyed the primary challenge of Hillary Clinton.
So the Left cannot really complain that Obama either betrayed the cause or proved particularly inept in advancing it. Instead, what Obama’s supporters are mad about is that the public is boiling over chronic 9 percent unemployment, a comatose housing market, escalating food and fuel prices, near-nonexistent economic growth, a gyrating stock market, record deficits, $16 trillion in aggregate debt, and a historic credit downgrading. And voters are not just mad, but are blaming these hard times on the liberal Obama agenda of more regulations, more federal spending, more borrowing, more talk of taxes, and more “stimulus” programs.
A mostly moderate-to-conservative public has concluded that it does not like the new liberal agenda. After three years, it believes that the big government/big borrowing medicine made the inherited illness far worse. Voters may or may not like Obama, but they surely do not like what he is still trying to do.
In response, the Left needs a sacrificial lamb. So it has nonsensically turned with a fury on Obama as if he were culpable for pushing through the Left’s own agenda. If Democrats do not blame the public’s anger on their once-beloved messenger, then they are left only with their message itself. And that is something they simply cannot accept.
Jennifer Aniston comes off as a "good girl" and possibly in need of fresh sheets on the bed to be able to come to orgasm. Well okay, maybe that's a bit much, I was saving that line for a Martha Stewart joke and got tired of waiting. Anyway... Angelina Jolie comes off as a fair bit slutty and into having sex. When she was married to Billy Bob Thornton she used to have a vial of his blood in a necklace - I think once bodily fluids become jewelry for a chick, anal is actively ruled in. Plus the tattoos are a fairly good sign of brazen sexuality too. Jennifer Aniston did get that whole cult following of women getting their hair cut in "The Rachel", but guys didn't give a toss about it. Angelina Jolie was Lara Croft for crying out loud, so guys care about that seeing polygon count was involved.There's a lot more at the link, and that's an explicit analysis, but Angelina's no doubt got the rougher edges.
Image: "Angelina Jolie Quashes Rumors of a Secret Wedding and Admits to Fears About Writing and Directing Her First Feature Film."
HAT TIP: Kathy Shaidle.
Today, Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons have fewer stores in Southern California, and fewer employees. Albertsons has closed 67 locations since the 2003-04 strike and worker lockout. Ralphs has closed 48 stores, and Vons and Pavilions are down 47.
The competition is filling the gap. Unified Grocers, which represents at least 526 stores owned by independent chains, controls 12.1% of the grocery market in Southern California and Las Vegas, according to research by the Shelby Report, a grocery industry publication.
Trader Joe's, with 106 stores, has 5.4% of the market. Smart & Final, Tesco's Fresh & Easy and Whole Foods combined control another 5.4%, according to the report.
Although these companies all target different consumers, they have one thing in common: They are, for the most part, non-union shops. And like the airline and auto industries, the three big unionized retailers all have legacy health, pension and payroll costs that put them at an economic disadvantage.
Smaller chains can also tailor individual stores to the tastes of the neighborhood.
For independent grocer Jax Markets in Anaheim, that means packaging meat in smaller containers and wooing customers with personalized service. The four-store chain caters to predominantly Latino shoppers. A number of its customers don't have cars, so the grocer offers a free shuttle service for anyone who lives within a five-mile radius of a store and is willing to spend a minimum of $30 in their trip to the grocery store.
"When the gas prices were going up, I wondered, 'Is it really worth it?' But it is," said W. Bill MacAloney, chief executive of Jax Markets. "People are shopping around, and that gives us an opportunity. So we need to do what we can to help our customers."
Serving ethnic shoppers can go beyond carrying brands they like. A number of economic factors persuaded Vons to close one of its locations in a working-class Latino neighborhood of Long Beach. Superior Grocers snapped up the outlet in 2003, before the strike, and transformed it into a mid-size store with bargain-priced produce and fast-moving register lines.
On a recent Monday afternoon, a mostly Latino crowd jammed the produce section, plucking up bags of mangoes the size of softballs for 99 cents each. Customers reached for fresh tortillas made in the store, freshly baked French rolls and loaves of Mexican sweet bread. Flat-panel TVs played Spanish-language news clips. On the overhead speakers, daily specials rang out in English and Spanish.
Four miles to the southeast, in the upscale Belmont Shore neighborhood, Vons operates one of its smaller specialty stores, known as the Market by Vons. Sparkling clean and quiet as a library, the store features a bounty of wine and a limited produce selection. Mangoes there cost $1 more than at Superior Grocers and were half the size.
"I love this Vons, but I don't shop here all the time," said Patty Barnett, 38, an artist who lives in downtown Long Beach. "I shop where there are sales."
President Obama made a defiant call on Monday for $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to find $3.2 trillion in budget savings over the next decade, issuing his most detailed proposal yet to tame the soaring federal debt.Also at Chicago Sun-Times, "Tax the rich, Obama says; class warfare, says GOP."
Abandoning earlier compromises, Obama adopted a posture that cedes far less ground in cutting the nation’s social safety net and demands much more in terms of new levies on millionaires, other wealthy Americans and some industries.
The proposal drew an angry response from key Republicans, underscoring the considerable opposition to his plan on Capitol Hill as a special bipartisan committee on deficit reduction ramps up its work in coming weeks.
Tucker neglected to include in his remarks to Politico this am – and which I am now completing for him – is that it is a convicted rapist (not Peyton Manning!) who is spewing the most vile violence against women. Maybe Tucker wants to troll the prison to see what pretty things they have to say about women? And he can call that news? I am sure he can find some really, really, really famous rapist in prison to get a quote or two about women.And Tucker's a friend of Greta's! Who needs enemies??!!
It did not call itself the flagship Ray’s Pizza because it never really had a fleet. It was not Original Ray’s or Famous Ray’s or Original Famous Ray’s or Real Ray’s or Ray’s on Ice or any of the other cloned shops sprinkled like shredded mozzarella all over town. It was simply Ray’s Pizza, and in the great pizza wars of New York City, it was respected as having been the first, standing more or less above the fray at 27 Prince Street in Little Italy, with tree limbs holding up the basement ceiling and an owner whose name wasn’t even Ray.Keep reading.
And now, it seems, barring any surprises, Ray’s Pizza — the original that was so original it did not have the word “original” in its name — appears doomed to close at the end of the month.
This is not a popular topic at Ray’s right now.
“I don’t want you to put that this is the end,” said Helen Mistretta, the manager who, seven months before her 80th birthday, is in no mood for weepy nostalgia. “It’s the end of 27 Prince, not the end of Ray’s of Prince Street.”
The closing, long story short, follows a legal dispute among heirs with various interests in the building at 27 Prince, which includes apartments and the two sides of Ray’s: the pizzeria and an Italian restaurant, each with its separate entrance, but sharing a kitchen and the corporation name, Ray’s of Prince Street. When the Ray in Ray’s, one of the owners of the building, died in 2008, a row arose over whether the restaurant’s lease was valid and whether it should pay rent. A lawsuit was filed in 2009 and settled this year.
Now Ray’s Pizza is moving out amid a lot of head-shakes and shrugs and what-are-you-gonna-do Little Italy resignation.
You could say Ray’s on Prince Street kept to itself, perfectly content with its place in the constellation where others burned brighter. Just a block away, tourists line up on the sidewalk for a seat in Lombardi’s, waiting for a hostess wearing a microphone headset to call their names from loudspeakers. Wait for a pizza? This was not the Ray’s way, where pies come whole or by the slice, hot from the oven, enjoyed without hurry in a humble booth beneath a hand-painted “Ray’s Gourmet Pizza” board.
The closing of Ray’s would seem to remove from the neighborhood any vestige of the late Ralph Cuomo, its first owner, who once loomed large.
Kindness isn’t a public or intellectual virtue, but a personal one. It is a form of love. Kindness seeks, above all, to avoid hurt. Criticism -- even objective, impersonal, well- intended, constructive criticism -- isn’t kind. Criticism hurts people’s feelings, and it hurts most when the recipient realizes it’s accurate. Treating “kindness” as the way to civil discourse doesn’t show students how to argue with accuracy and respect. It teaches them instead to neither give criticism nor tolerate it.And at Bits and Pieces (the blog of Harvard Professor Harry Lewis, "The Freshman Pledge":
Its purpose is to make people think and to induce conversation on the important matter of civility and generosity. I am assured that the intention is not to make anyone feel compelled to sign the pledge.Chilling. Our very highest institution of learning, once again seen as among the most totalitarian.
In this case, alas, the line between an invitation and a compulsion is exceedingly narrow, and I doubt those who explain it to students can consistently do so with the required nuance. The pledge is delivered to students for signing by their proctors, the officers of the College who monitor their compliance with Harvard rules and report their malfeasances to the College's disciplinary board. Nonconformists would have good reason to fear that they will be singled out for extra scrutiny. And their unsigned signature lines are hung for all to see, in an act of public shaming. Few students, in their first week at Harvard, would have the courage to refuse this invitation. I am not sure I would advise any student to do so.
The substance of the pledge is critically important. This is not a pledge to refrain from cheating, or to take out the garbage. It is not a pledge to act in a certain way. It is a pledge to think about the world a certain way, to hold precious the exercise of kindness. It is a promise to control one's thoughts. Though it refers to sound institutional values affirmed at Commencement, the pledge pretends to affirm them not through the educational process to which the Dean testifies, but through a prior restraint on students' freedom of thought. A student would be breaking the pledge if she woke up one morning and decided it was more important to achieve intellectually than to be kind.
SO GRAVE, so menacing, so unstoppable has the euro crisis become that even rescue talk only fuels ever-rising panic. Investors have sniffed out that Europe’s leaders seem unwilling ever to do enough. Yet unless politicians act fast to persuade the world that their desire to preserve the euro is greater than the markets’ ability to bet against it, the single currency faces ruin. As credit lines gum up and outsiders plead for action, it is not just the euro that is at risk, but the future of the European Union and the health of the world economy.Keep reading. The piece keeps mentioning the "restructuring of debt," which follows from the fact that some European states simply can't make good on their obligations, and sovereign default would hammer commercial banks and cause even deeper economic turmoil. But the larger issue is whether EU members deal with the crisis in multilateral fashion or retreat to narrower self-interest, casting off Greece to its own misfortunes, and so forth...
WROCLAW, Poland — European finance ministers ended a two-day meeting here Saturday without making substantial progress toward solving the region’s debt crisis, or any pledge to recapitalize Europe’s banks.
The meetings were highlighted by the appearance by Timothy F. Geithner, the United States treasury secretary, whose advice, and warnings, drew a tepid reaction from the euro zone’s finance ministers. And Mr. Geithner’s rejection Friday of a European idea for a global tax on financial transactions prompted a debate about whether Europe should go ahead on its own.
Meanwhile, with an October deadline looming for international lenders to agree to the release of around 8 billion euros, or $11 billion, of aid to Greece, without which it could default on its debt, George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, canceled a trip to the United States.
“The coming week is particularly critical for the implementation of the July 21 decisions in the euro area and the initiatives which the country must undertake,” Mr. Papandreou said in a statement on Saturday.
The attendance of an American official at Friday’s meeting was unusual, and Jacek Rostowski, the finance minister of Poland who invited Mr. Geithner, said it showed “unity within the transatlantic family.”
That glossed over the grumbling about Mr. Geithner’s comments from several European ministers Friday, including Maria Fekter of Austria, who publicly said she was unimpressed with Mr. Geithner’s contribution.
Yet the American plea for urgent decisions to shore up the euro zone was echoed Saturday by two European ministers whose nations have stayed outside the single currency.
So now we know how she does it.I don't ever "hate" my wife. And it's rare that I even allow myself to be angry with her. When we've had marital difficulties I felt both sad and somewhat resigned, but usually not angry. When I get angry I want to strike out, and that's not a healthy emotion for me, so I avoid it. And my wife and I are committed to our marriage through "better or worse," so separation has never really been an option for us. It would take something extreme, like a death of one of our children and a subsequent emotional and psychological implosion, to really sink our partnership. We live for family. (And of course there's never been questions of infidelity, which I imagine would be a deal-breaker, but cheating isn't part of our experience or even a considered possibility.) I think you have to take a deep breath every day and thank God for having someone who loves you (with all your faults), and who's there for you in "sickness and in health." Besides, I just don't think 20 minutes of hating your spouse is all that healthy, but it's Sarah Jessica Parker's marriage not mine.
Sarah Jessica Parker has discussed the unconventional secret behind the success of her 14 year relationship.
The 46-year-old star admitted that she coped with married life by allowing herself 20 minutes a [day] to 'hate' her husband Matthew Broderick.
The actress was chatting [to] Ryan Seacrest on his KISS FM breakfast show when he quizzed her about comments she made earlier this month about allowing herself moments of rage.
The I Don't Know How She Does It Star replied: 'I think that's healthy and I think it's realistic.'
'Some people have it down to 20 minutes a week. Other unfortunate people have it down to 20 minutes per hour.'
Also at Daily Mail, "Archaeologists discover remains of a Roman gladiator school in Austria."
Over the course of the 10 years, American authorities foiled more than two dozen al-Qaeda plots. Those averted tragedies were not foremost on the minds of revelers who gathered to celebrate Bin Laden’s demise on May 1 at Ground Zero, Times Square, and in front of the White House. But if a mere few of the plots had materialized, those spaces might not even have been open to public assembly.Now go read the whole thing.
Not only have U.S. authorities managed to keep America safe from al-Qaeda for a decade; by the time he was killed, Osama bin Laden was barely a leader. Among the items recovered at his compound in Abbottabad were some recent writings, in which the former icon lamented al-Qaeda’s dramatically sinking stock and pondered organizational rebranding as a possible antidote.
His growing insignificance as a global player was not the product of chance. The marginalization of the world’s principal jihadist was the result of audacious American policy—indeed, the most controversial and hotly debated policy undertaken in the wake of 9/11. In the words of Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in the Wall Street Journal, “the war in Iraq was Bin Laden’s great moral undoing.” In his desperate attempt to drive American fighting forces out of Mesopotamia, Bin Laden sanctioned a bloody civil war in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The carnage failed to repel the United States, but in the end, the countrywide slaughter of Muslims proved too much to bear for al-Qaeda’s own one-time and would-be supporters. The “Sunni awakening” that helped transform Iraq was an awakening out of al-Qaeda jihadism, and the blow it delivered to Bin Laden’s ambitions was stunning.
After the turnaround in Iraq, the landscape of the Muslim world suffered even greater changes—with ordinary Muslims rising to revolt against Persian and Arab tyranny, not against American hegemony. As Fouad Ajami has written: “The Arab Spring has simply overwhelmed the world of the jihadists. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, younger people—hurled into politics by the economic and political failures all around them—are attempting to create a new political framework, to see if a way could be found out of the wreckage that the authoritarian states have bequeathed them.”
It was the Freedom Agenda of the George W. Bush administration—delineated and formulated as a conscious alternative to jihadism—that showed the way. Indeed, the costly American nation-building in Iraq has now led to the creation of the world’s first and only functioning democratic Arab state. One popular indictment of Bush maintains that he settled on the Freedom Agenda as justification for war after U.S. forces and inspectors found no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The record shows otherwise. “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East,” he said before the invasion, in February 2003. “Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both.”
And something of the kind has come to pass. “One despot fell in 2003,” Ajami has said. “We decapitated him. Two despots, in Tunisia and Egypt, fell, and there is absolutely a direct connection between what happened in Iraq in 2003 and what’s happening today throughout the rest of the Arab world.”
Thus, there are three intertwined achievements that have proved to be the dispositive features of American success in the war on terror: formulating the Freedom Agenda in the Middle East, reversing the course of the war in Iraq, and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks. It is no coincidence that they are also the most controversial foreign policies America has implemented since the Vietnam War.
September 11 was a hinge moment in American history. The attacks plunged the nation into a full-scale war against non-state entities. Any adequate American response had to break with previous approaches in previous conflicts. War could not be waged on parties inside states in the same way it had been waged on states themselves. Prisoners captured on a battlefield in a country not their own and with no interest in following the rules of conventional war could not be handled as they had been. Getting the edge on Islamist terror would mean fundamentally rethinking our approach to both the blunting of deadly threats and the shuttering of the political hothouses of the Middle East in which such threats thrive.
The adoption of these unprecedented and uncompromising means of war inspired animated debate in the United States. In fighting the war on terror, we have been told, America has become—depending on the accuser—either too dismissive or too enamored of democracy. Some on the left think our national-security apparatus undermines our defining ideals. On the right, outraged voices condemn our naive enthusiasm for helping to secure liberty for Muslims abroad, calling it a form of multicultural self-sabotage. After civil war seized post-invasion Iraq, critics from across the ideological spectrum denounced our misguided effort. The fits and starts and frustrations of the war decade have this one thing in common: we have done battle in an age when spectacular setbacks appear to provide irrefutable evidence of our own baseness and incompetence—a few years before drab good news arrives to refute both expert opinion and common knowledge.
The arguments that we have prosecuted the war on terror immorally and ineffectually are important, and deserve the respectful hearing they have received, even if many of those arguing these points have resorted to launching the most abject slanders and accusations toward those who believe the war on terror is just and has been fought honorably. To be sure, not everything the United States has done in the war on terror has been correct. Far from it. As Winston Churchill said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” In the fight against Islamist terrorism, American blunders have come in all shapes and sizes, and in truth there are few small wartime miscalculations. This is especially so in an age of instant global headlines.
We continue to suffer for our biggest mistakes. Concerning the failure to catch Bin Laden and make serious efforts to nation-build early in the Afghanistan war, inaccurate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, and the Pentagon’s ill-preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency, there can be no absolution. These errors have cost the country tragic sums in money, credibility, and life. They also set our efforts back precious years.
But these blunders, great as they are, have not undone America’s outstanding accomplishments. Ten years ago, the most delusional optimist among us would not have predicted the irrelevancy of Osama bin Laden or a decade without another al-Qaeda attack, let alone a democratic Iraq and a transformative explosion of antiauthoritarianism in the Middle East.
Nor do American achievements in this war mean we are in a position to quit the fight. The notion that America achieved closure with Bin Laden’s killing suggests to some, perhaps even the occupant of the White House, that the war on terror has had its decade and the United States can now move on. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” said Barack Obama this summer as he announced a sizable drawdown of troops in Afghanistan for the fall of 2012. The suggestion that our work is done has traction only because resolute American action at home and abroad have provided a sense of security so pervasive it now goes unquestioned.
The United States has fallen prey to false comfort in the past. So before we submit to the siren song of closure, we would do well to recall that that is exactly where this war began—and our retaining some genuine measure of security has been the result of thinking and acting more boldly than we have in generations.
